Dismissed¶¶13

Pankaj Pandey v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Oct 2020WRIA/8205/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Vehicle registration; Registering Authority, Varanasi; registration fee not paid to Registering Authority / not remitted by Dealer; trade certificate; Rule 42; Rule 44; Rules 39 to 43; Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989; Scorpio-S10 Engine No. WGH4B17658 Chassis No. MA1TA2WGXH2B22060; relief orally prayed but not pleaded; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition; Pankaj Pandey v. State of U.P.; counsel: O.P. Singh, Dinesh Kumar Singh, C.S.C., N.K. Pandey; order date 21.10.2020.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition seeking appropriate relief. ¶¶13

Pankaj Pandey Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Motor Accident Claims | Allahabad HC (2020)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition seeking appropriate relief.

¶¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction could be issued to the third respondent (Assistant Transport Officer/Registering Authority, Varanasi) to register the petitioner's vehicle (Scorpio-S10). +1 more

¶¶6

Court's answer

The only prayer in the petition was to command the third respondent to direct respondent no.4 to provide registration of the petitioner's vehicle.

¶¶11

Ratio / Principle

The petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh petition seeking appropriate relief.

¶¶13

Key takeaways

Though the submission that action be taken against the Dealer appeared attractive, it could not be entertained because no such relief as orally prayed was sought in the petition.obiter¶¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - A No. 8205 of 2020, decided 21.10.2020) by a vehicle purchaser seeking a direction to the third respondent, Assistant Transport Officer/Registering Authority, Varanasi, to register his Scorpio-S10 vehicle (Engine No. WGH4B17658, Chassis No. MA1TA2WGXH2B22060). On instruction, the learned Standing Counsel stated that registration could not be completed because the registration fee had not been paid to the Registering Authority. Senior counsel for the petitioner, invoking Rule 42 (mandate on a trade-certificate holder to deliver the vehicle to the purchaser with registration) and Rule 44 (power to suspend or cancel a trade certificate for non-compliance with Rules 39 to 43) of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, urged orally that respondent no.3 should instead take action against the Dealer who failed to remit the money deposited by the petitioner. The Court observed that although the submission appeared attractive, no such relief had been sought in the petition, the only prayer being a command to the third respondent to direct respondent no.4 to provide registration. Counsel for the petitioner thereupon sought leave to withdraw with liberty to file a fresh petition seeking appropriate relief; the petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶1

Court No. - 48

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8205 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Pankaj Pandey Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents 1 to 3; and perused the record.

¶6

The present petition seeks a direction upon the third respondent (Assistant Transport Officer/Registering Authority, Varanasi) to register the vehicle (Scorpio-S10 bearing Engine No. WGH4B17658 Chassis No. MA1TA2WGXH2B22060) within the stipulated period.

¶7

On 07.10.2020, the learned Standing Counsel was required to seek instructions in the matter.

¶8

On instruction, Sri N.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, has submitted that the registration of the vehicle could not be done because the registration fee, as payable, has not been paid to the Registering Authority.

¶9

Sri O.P. Singh, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, for the petitioner, submitted that under Rule 42 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, there is a mandate for the holder of a trade certificate to deliver motor vehicle to the purchaser with registration, without temporary or permanent. He further submits that under Rule 44 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the Registering Authority, if he has reason to believe that the holder of any trade certificate has not complied with the provisions of Rules 39 to 43, may, after giving the holder an opportunity of being heard, suspend or cancel the trade certificate held by him. It is thus the submission on behalf of the petitioner that the third respondent should take action against the Dealer for not remitting the money deposited by the petitioner for registation of the vehicle.

¶10

Though the above submission appears attractive but no such relief as orally prayed has been sought in the petition.

¶11

The prayer in this petition is only to command the third respondent to command the respondent no.4 to provide registration of petitioner's vehicle.

¶12

Under the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition seeking appropriate relief.

¶13

In view of the above, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.

¶14

Order Date :- 21.10.2020 Sunil Kr Tiwari

Pankaj Pandey v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Pandey v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Karim and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Akhtar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Usha Devi and 3 Others Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Pramod Kumar Dwivedi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others